XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
   From: David@block.net   
      
   On 6/13/2015 12:03 PM, mur wrote:   
   > On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 01:01:46 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   > .   
   >> On 6/5/2015 2:22 PM, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>>      If you decide there is no God associated with Earth it means you   
   could NOT   
   >>>>>>> realistically consider how there could be. Even an atheist SHOULD be   
   able to   
   >>>>>>> comprehend that much.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Actually I'm capable of hypothetical reasoning.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>      You apparently like to believe that thinking there is NOT a God   
   associated   
   >>>>> with Earth is the same thing as considering how there might be.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Wrong.  The two things are merely not incompatible.   
   >>>   
   >>>       They sure are. Why do you like to think otherwise, do you have any   
   idea   
   >>> about that?   
   >>   
   >> "Consider" does not mean "believe".   
   >   
   >      If you want to pretend you can consider how there could be then try   
   doing it   
   > and we'll see if you can or not.   
      
   I do not understand why it is even in doubt that I can consider the idea   
   that God may exist.  What gives you the idea that I am incapable of   
   considering the idea?  There could be a heaven, a hell, immortal souls,   
   the world could have been created last Tuesday with an entire physical   
   history.  I can consider these things as easily as I can consider the   
   question of whether Princess Celestia controls the rotation of her   
   world, or instead her sun is a smaller and closer object and she   
   actually controls its motion.   
      
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>> But since I only consider it and don't believe   
   >>>>>>>>>> it, I'm an atheist.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>        As yet there's no reason for anyone to believe you can   
   consider it. Even if   
   >>>>>>>>> you eventually are able to provide evidence that you can you could   
   still be a   
   >>>>>>>>> weak agnostic rather than the weak atheist you want people to   
   believe you are.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That doesn't make any sense.  Everyone is a "weak agnostic" if they   
   are   
   >>>>>>>> sane.  Everyone is aware that they could be wrong.  That's why I don't   
   >>>>>>>> call myself "agnostic".  The word's meaningless in itself.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>      No it's not. You just can't comprehend what the meaning is. Are   
   you able to   
   >>>>>>> find out and learn what it means on your own, or do you need someone   
   to explain   
   >>>>>>> it for you?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So you claim.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>      Being agnostic involves having a belief regarding whether or not   
   anyone   
   >>>>> could know God does exist. A strong agnostic believes no one could know.   
   A weak   
   >>>>> agnostic believes it's possible for some people to know it if he does.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And how would that be possible?  How is it possible to know anything?   
   >>>   
   >>>       It would be possible to know that as much as it's possible to know   
   anything   
   >>> else exists.   
   >>   
   >> What does the word "know" mean to you?   
   >   
   >       We can't "really" know anything which is why I put it that way.   
   >   
      
   In short, everyone (who is sane) is aware that they could be wrong.  I   
   am aware that I could be wrong.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)